Jane M Young1, Anna O'Halloran2, Claire McAulay2, Marie Pirotta3, Kirsty Forsdike3, Ingrid Stacey4, David Currow4. 1. Cancer Epidemiology and Services Research (CESR), Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Lifehouse (C39Z), NSW 2006, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: jane.young@sydney.edu.au. 2. Cancer Epidemiology and Services Research (CESR), Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Lifehouse (C39Z), NSW 2006, Sydney, Australia. 3. Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, 200 Berkeley St, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia. 4. Cancer Institute NSW, Australian Technology Park, Level 9, 8 Central Avenue, Everleigh, NSW 2015, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the impact of unconditional and conditional financial incentives on response rates among Australian general practitioners invited by mail to participate in an online survey about cancer care and to investigate possible differential response bias between incentive groups. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Australian general practitioners were randomly allocated to unconditional incentive (book voucher mailed with letter of invitation), conditional incentive (book voucher mailed on completion of the online survey), or control (no incentive). Nonresponders were asked to complete a small subset of questions from the online survey. RESULTS: Among 3,334 eligible general practitioners, significantly higher response rates were achieved in the unconditional group (167 of 1,101, 15%) compared with the conditional group (118 of 1,111, 11%) (P = 0.0014), and both were significantly higher than the control group (74 of 1,122, 7%; both P < 0.001). Although more positive opinions about cancer care were expressed by online responders compared with nonresponders, there was no evidence that the magnitude of difference varied by the incentive group. The incremental cost for each additional 1% increase above the control group response rate was substantially higher for the unconditional incentive group compared with the conditional incentive group. CONCLUSION: Both unconditional and conditional financial incentives significantly increased response with no evidence of differential response bias. Although unconditional incentives had the largest effect, the conditional approach was more cost-effective.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare the impact of unconditional and conditional financial incentives on response rates among Australian general practitioners invited by mail to participate in an online survey about cancer care and to investigate possible differential response bias between incentive groups. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Australian general practitioners were randomly allocated to unconditional incentive (book voucher mailed with letter of invitation), conditional incentive (book voucher mailed on completion of the online survey), or control (no incentive). Nonresponders were asked to complete a small subset of questions from the online survey. RESULTS: Among 3,334 eligible general practitioners, significantly higher response rates were achieved in the unconditional group (167 of 1,101, 15%) compared with the conditional group (118 of 1,111, 11%) (P = 0.0014), and both were significantly higher than the control group (74 of 1,122, 7%; both P < 0.001). Although more positive opinions about cancer care were expressed by online responders compared with nonresponders, there was no evidence that the magnitude of difference varied by the incentive group. The incremental cost for each additional 1% increase above the control group response rate was substantially higher for the unconditional incentive group compared with the conditional incentive group. CONCLUSION: Both unconditional and conditional financial incentives significantly increased response with no evidence of differential response bias. Although unconditional incentives had the largest effect, the conditional approach was more cost-effective.
Authors: Angelina L Bosman; Anne E Deckert; Carolee A Carson; Richard J Reid-Smith; Zvonimir Poljak; Scott A McEwen Journal: Can Vet J Date: 2021-05 Impact factor: 1.008
Authors: Eric J Chow; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Anna M Hagen; Melissa M Hudson; Todd M Gibson; Komal Kochar; Aaron McDonald; Paul C Nathan; Karen L Syrjala; Sarah L Taylor; Emily S Tonorezos; Yutaka Yasui; Gregory T Armstrong; Kevin C Oeffinger Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Peter W Rose; Greg Rubin; Rafael Perera-Salazar; Sigrun Saur Almberg; Andriana Barisic; Martin Dawes; Eva Grunfeld; Nigel Hart; Richard D Neal; Marie Pirotta; Jeffrey Sisler; Gerald Konrad; Berit Skjødeberg Toftegaard; Hans Thulesius; Peter Vedsted; Jane Young; Willie Hamilton Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Yee Tak Derek Cheung; Xue Weng; Man Ping Wang; Sai Yin Ho; Antonio Cho Shing Kwong; Vienna Wai Yin Lai; Tai Hing Lam Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Shivan J Mehta; Rebecca S Pepe; Nicole B Gabler; Mounika Kanneganti; Catherine Reitz; Chelsea Saia; Joseph Teel; David A Asch; Kevin G Volpp; Chyke A Doubeni Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-03-01
Authors: E Wangeci Kagucia; Benard Ochieng; Joyce Were; Kyla Hayford; David Obor; Katherine L O'Brien; Dustin G Gibson Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2021-01